Stuff

However, there are two things worth noting in the regular trackers today. Firstly best party on the NHS – as usual people prefer Labour to the Conservatives on the issue, in this case by 38% to 24%. What’s notable is that the 14 point change is the same as a fortnight ago; David Cameron’s big relaunch and pledges on the NHS do not appear to have increased people’s trust in the Conservatives on the issue… but then, neither do the U-turn or the increased publicity about the reorganisation seem to have damaged them.

Where there does appear to be a change is in perceptions of David Cameron’s strengths. Very little change in people who think he is charismatic, a natural leader, strong or honest… but “decisive” is down 4 points and “sticks to what he believes in” is down 6 from 26% to 20% – the lowest since the general election.

I think it’s worth Labour trying to establish a “slippery Dave” image in people’s minds as DC’s numbers as strong and decisive are high and it’s always worth chipping away at a perceived strength.

But it will take a catastrophic loss of confidence in DC (of Iraq War/ERM withdrawal proportions) for his numbers to drop as low as EMs. Only if DCs approval is much worse than EMs will the Lab leaders popularity (or lack of it) NOT be a drag on Labs fortunes (e.g. Thatcher had pretty bad ratings in 79 and 83 but Callaghan and Foot had much worse).

I have to say, I’m not convinced any change in direction in Government policy can be picked up in next week’s polling figures. Should the Government’s new position on the NHS change people’s minds, I think it’s more likely it will be a gradual process, by which time the figures might also have been influenced by some other news story.

Or it might be the case that the Government’s U-turn really has had no effect on public opinion. It may be that we’ll never know the true public reaction.

You may have to consider the possibility that many people may have already made uo their minds about the next GE (particularly Lab and Con supporters) and we are set for a nailbiter, with turnout and effectivity of votes being decisive.

The comparison with David Miliband in voters minds is broadly the same as when polling was undertaken before the leadership ballot (which was dismissed by some at the time as because “David is better known than Ed”… that can hardly be the case now).

This is not to say that David would have done better than Ed, it is just that polling suggests there is evidence of a perception out there.

By election is on 30 June (last day of the school term, so many will be on holiday).

I’ve been in the constituency for the last 2 weeks, but would hesitate to suggest whether the SNP could sneak through on a low turnout, or whether Labour will hang on with a reduced majority.

Some points to bear in mind.

This election is nothing to do with Westminster issues. It is being fought largely on which local person will manage to do something about jobs (and how local they are!)

I knew David Cairns was popular, but I hadn’t realised just how much. His personal vote won’t necessarily stay Labour.

My impression is that voters are still minded to look at politics through a Scottish rather than UK prism, so a result more like this May than last May seems possible.

The Labour machine is well organised and had a faster start (since they knew they were going to call a snap election) but judging by the number of posters, the leaflet distribution and the number of canvassers, the SNP is maybe slightly ahead in number of workers at the moment.

Given that the SNP didn’t take the equivalent seat for Holyrood, a Labour win seems probable, but turnout will be the key, I think, therefore the result is unpredictable.

The comparison with David Miliband in voters minds is broadly the same as when polling was undertaken before the leadership ballot (which was dismissed by some at the time as because “David is better known than Ed”… that can hardly be the case now).

This is not to say that David would have done better than Ed, it is just that polling suggests there is evidence of a perception out there.”

I think it’s clear that Ed is not Labour’s strongest leader. But at this point, he’s not harming Labour. Whether he would in an election where the Tories could train all their guns on him is a different question.

It’s not uncommon to see a politician leading their party post early polling leads only to see them crash and fall when their weaknesses are exposed in a campaign. This happenned to a number of leaders of center left leaders in the past decade…Mark Latham, Segolene Royal, John Kerry, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. I think Labour worries that whatever lead they may have now, a campaign could wind up reversing that lead.

“You may not have heard of another popular Scottish gay, Edwin Morgan – Scotland’s first “Makar” (Scots for a poet, so our Poet Laureate).

He died last year aged 90, and it now transpires that he left £1 million to the SNP in his will.

That’s a pretty good start to the fighting fund for the Independence referendum!”

Wow, I’d never heard of him before. I wikipediaed him. Sounds like a fascinating guy. He spoke Russian (always a favorite trait for me), he was a conscientous objector to World War II yet served in a non-combat role anyway, and he didn’t come out until he was 70. I hope that none of his relatives attempt to challenge that gift (I once read a case excerpt that a man’s multi million pound bequest to the Tories was invalidated in court because it was due to mental incapacity…disagreed with the ruling).

As for gay Nats, they probably can play “Take your mama out” by the Scissor Sisters on the bagpipes, wear rainbow, pink, and lavender colored kilts, treat Margo MacDonald as an icon on par with Cher and Dianna Ross, and support independence so that they can be free from any national association with Elton John. Well I’d assume anyway….j/k. :)

On a serious note, I just learned that Alex Salmond had come out in favor of marriage equality and did so right before the election. I think that’s very impressive. I’m glad your First Minister has decided to follow my Governor, Liutenant Governor, and Attorney General in this manner (it’s nice when Scottish and Californian politicians have things in common). Also, considering how amazingly well the SNP did in once safe Labour inner city consitutencies, I think Salmond’s position is demonstrative of the fact that whatever the individual feelings of working class voters are on this issue, it doesn’t actually impact their partisan political choice.

This is something that Alex Salmond could teach President Obama, someone who has never quite understood that standing strong for the protection of equal rights and individual liberties doesn’t result in vote losses. It seems like he may be getting this but I’m sorry that it’s a lesson he has to learn from Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, and Alex Salmond. :(

Also, I hope that Alan Smyth (who I’ve also just learned of tonight through my usual internet surfing) will consider running to be an MP. Even if one assumes arguendo that MSPs have more important roles/duties than MPs, MPs are undoubtedly more important than MEPs.

Regarding the Inverclyde by-election –
How will the strikes affect turn-out? (Or just generally result) Since it’s on the same day.

Inverclyde ranks 97th out of parliamentary constituencies for public sector employment at 37.3% of the constituency.

Obviously the effect could be both ways – public sector workers come out to massively vote against the gov (but which way – SNP or Labour?) or it could encourage coalitioneers (who must be a small number – combined 25.3% at last election) to turn out to vote against the striking workers.

1993-1997 was a great time, measured against TMI, BMI, MBMI or GDP.
Tories went on to lose the 1997 election.

Both Pure-Thatcher terms saw spikes in ‘misery’ and in the second term, ended with her roughly the place she started on.

Wilson/Callaghan started with poor growth and poor MI ratings and ended off better at the end.
Callaghan lost 1979.

Blair roughly saw a decrease in MI between 1997 and 2001 – a slight increase between 2001 and 2005.
Then it was only after the crash that Misery levels massively spiked (except measured against traditional MI, where it massively dropped – thanks to VAT drop?).

So what measurement should I judge ‘it’s the economy, stupid’ by?

(It took me ages to build a quarterly spreadsheet of the barro MI, why did they mess around with the base rate so often in the 80s? O_o)

Tingedfringe – I don’t think anyone would push a model predicting electoral support based purely on the state of the economy these days, models like David Sanders’ that include economic confidence normally also include lots of other things like PM approval.

One of the problems with discussing things like this is the difficultly of pointing people towards academic papers which are all locked away behind extortionately expensive academic paywalls. We end up re-inventing the wheel, when there are huge swathes of academic literature on the subject.

Go onto the MORI site. Roger has posted the link for people. It has 37 years worth of “issue” polling. The voters unprompted select two issues that “matter” to them. Lots of observations are possible if you export the data onto a spreadsheet and graph it.

1. Pendulum Theory: Ie lack of public service investment in health & Education plays into Labour’s hands as concern of services increases. Conversely, ample investment means it declines as a woe and oth issues fill the void. [You’ll see a spike in 1997 for Health/Educ] The question is whether these issues become important due to reality or just good campaigning….

2. Evidence it may be the latter is the sudden spike in Taxation as a worry in 2006 when blue made so much of the over burdened taxed citizen…

3. On economy its not easy to neatly package it like so. There is Unemployment [that’s been high as a worry and has not automatically benefited Labour]. There is inflation which at its height showed the apparent of benefiting the Tories.. My own view on economy as an issue is that the arguments are there to be won and it doesn’t automatically benefit one party. At a push, voters by nature mildly [historically] trust blue more.

4. An area of obvious advantage to th Tories is Crime/Immigration. Everytime there is a spike in it as important over the last 37 years, blues have made a net benefit… 1992 & 2009-10 are examples [it peaked after July 2007 but was still high by election time…

5. Then there are the recognised toxic issues for each party. In the past when Europe rose as an issue of importance it actually did the Tories more harm than good. Likewise, Trade Unions are an issue for Labour, if they rise on the voters’ radar it damages red…. And the obvious issue of Nuclear Disarmament hurts red when raised as an issue of importance… But these last three are historic- none of them have featured on the electoral radar for quite some time. But it is in both parties interests that they do not…

I hope this info suffices. I have not got the link hand y for the MORI stuff as that was off the top of my head.

One of the interesting factors that may be being overlooked in the discussion on the relative strengths of the leaders personal ratings is their relationship vis-a-vis to one another’s. I haven’t dredged up all the data from past polling, but while it may look very bad for Miliband to have a more negative score than IDS, especially when you consider IDS’s eventual fate, we should also remember, in fairness to IDS, that he was running against two fairly popular leaders at the time in Blair and Kennedy. His negative ratings were accentuated by the relative popularity of his rivals, as were Hague’s to some extent, whereas Miliband is currently riding alongside two leaders who are trying their best to compete with his unpopularity. Clegg is neck and neck, sometimes worse, and Cameron, whilst better, isn’t exactly tickling the fancy of the public either. It’s a bit like an “ugly contest” and that classic old “race to the bottom”. It’s quite helpful when you’re “enjoying” a period oif unpopularity for your rivals to be doing so too!

It is in this rather different political landscape where, as today’s Guardian rightly points out, all the major politicians are being held in rather low esteem, including Osborne now ,rather significantly, that we must judge Miliband’s current predicament. It may explain the stubborn refusal for the Labour VI rating to dip concurrently and proportionately with Miliband’s recent slide and also why I think great pinches of salt need to be taken when digesting the various doomsday scenarios now being painted for young Miliband’s prospects.

Like all the current polling, there is absolutely nothing pointing to either definite success or failure for Miliband and Labour in four years time. He’s neither on course or dead in the water. It’s far too early to tell so the advice for now has to be; stay calm and carry on and, rather Macawber-like, see what turns up. It’s not dramatic or exciting, but opposition politics rarely are.

In 1992 the economy was centre stage, but the Tories were still considered the party best able to deal with the issue (inspite of the recession and perception that they were to blame). Also Labour were led by a person who was considered NOT the best person to be Prime Minister.

(This is an important lesson for Labour supporters now – people may hate the cuts AND think the Tories are doing damage to the economy, but if Lab are not trusted AND their leader is not liked it wont help them).

In some ways, im 1997, the economic stability helped Labour because it removed another reason to stick with the Tories (the question then becomes “what are we going to do with all the wealth” not “the economy is in crisis and needs saving).

But of course the key issue in 1997 was the Tories had been in power for 18 years, they were tired, they weren’t governing very well and Labour had got itself a charismatic leader who appealed to the middle ground.

(Another lesson for Labour today – they have NEVER won a modern election from the left).

It is very silly to say that many people have made up their minds about the next election.

We know from every poll that the number of don’t knows is in a state of flux, and people move from being sure how they’d vote to becoming don’t knows (I’m sure many of the lost LDs will move more towards a “don’t know” stance the closer to the election and then decide in the campaign).

When you look at an opinion poll at the beginning of a parlt (and we are still pretty near the beginning) and the end of a parlt they are often in two completely different place (e.g. look at 2006 and then 2010).

In the course of the last parlt all the parties changed their leaders and the same could conceivable happen in this parlt (although probably not DC) so I think it is too say people have decided about the next election ….
it’s often too early to call at the start of a campaign (look at the last campaign, how the debates changed everything).

Actually, I do think that if we are now going to have debates in every election campaign these will be the defining factor shaping the campaigns.

This may be the one saving grace for EM, if he’s still the leader if four years time. The truth is that very few people (apart from us politicos) follow politics day by day. Many people don’t know what any of the parties stand for and would struggle to identify any of the top politicians (apart from DC and possibly, at a push, NC and EM). So EM has one advantage in that he could confound expectations in the debates (as NC did).

This is actually what John Kerry did in the 2004 US election. He was heading for a double digit loss until the debates. He ended up losing by four (I think from memory).

@ Crossbat

You are right – there is time for EM to turn things around, but pretty much most people think that his performance so far has been pretty poor (I am a Lab supporter and I have NOT been impressed).

So “no change” is simply a receipe for disaster. He does need to improve, get a sharper attack line, and develop a coherent counter-narrative and vision to tackle the defecit, welfare and other key issues (policies can come later).

If he could get DM to come back as Shadow Chancellor that would be very interesting (but I’m pretty certain will not happen).

News from the Continent:
In Italy, the center-left alliance has now a 12 point advance in most recent polls (Crespi Institute: Center-left 47, Center-right 35, Center 11). It is the first time that any poll shows double-digit advance. In practice (seats distribution) this is not important, because Italian electoral law gives OM to the alliance that tops the polls, even with a slight difference, but politically it is very important and shows that Berlusconi’s end is inevitable.
In Denmark, center-left has also a double-digit advance for this year’s election (55 to 44 according to the last poll by Voxmeter).
Conversely in Spain center-right PP seems to consolidate its double-digit advance over ruling socialists and Rubalcaba, Zapatero’s successor designate, does not seem capable of reversing the trend.
In general, govt. parties seem to suffer badly, the most extreme case being Romania, where incumbent center-right PDL has a VI of 17, whereas the Socialist-Liberal alliance (an original development, it is the first time that such an electoral alliance is formed) has over 60. The only European govt. that holds (except, of course, of those formed in 2011, which are very recent, and except of Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg, that are ruled by grand coalitions) is the Hungarian very rightish one. All the other countries fall in two categories: those where the opposition has already a command lead (Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, UK) and those where opposition is too fragmented and cannot yet pose a threat to gvt, despite the latter’s decreased popularity (Greece, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden).
Very crucial day today for Greece, where the reshuffled socialist gvt faces a confidence vote in Parliament. Theoretically they control 155 out of 300 seats (after 4 defections last year and 1 recently), but in this totally unpredictable country one can never now.

I fully agree with you that a lot of people aren’t even close to making their minds up (or even thinking much) about the next election.

I think with the leadership debates the LDs (possibly under a new leader) have an excellent platform to point out the positives (in their eyes) that were gained from entering the coalition and set out their ideas for the future separately from the conservative party. It will take a lot of skill to get people to listen but there is a chance to win back some of the lost LDs (and some socally liberal conservatives) outside the vitriol of the press. I’m not saying they will, but the platform to justify the previous 5 years decisions are there. They can’t enter the election apologetically, they have to maintain that they believed their influence on the government had more positives than negatives and hope that when all the positives are put together it resonates with the lost voters.

The economy would have to be growing with a positive outlook for the future and the deficit all but closed. In that scenario the LDs can justify the painful decisions they had to take because “It worked, we didn’t like it but it was necessary”.

One thing is for sure, if as is expected now the LDs take a hit in the next election they will benefit from increased exposure (also with more scrutiny, I doubt we’ll see any more “pledges” made so freely) in subsequent elections. After all isn’t everything that happened in a previous government “ancient history”?.

Mass prolonged public sector union action could turn some people who now support Labour but disagree with the scale of the action away, another unknown before the next election. I see the LDs as a redistributive party (Increasing income tax thresholds, increasing CGT for higher rate payers as examples of LD policy that made it through) who don’t see increasing the size of the public sector as the way to redistribute wealth. Another argument that could get traction in the debates.

It’s tough for the LDs, I’m sure they will lose votes from people who didn’t see them as an independently minded party and are angry at the “You didn’t support Labour as I assumed you would”. Convincing people that their influence on the government had more positives than negative however is a completely separate argument that they are currently losing badly.

If the LDs want to have further influence, they will have to do that without.the first vote. The second group of lost votes will be a hard argument to win, with current opinion firmly against this, rightly or wrongly. The argument they have to win is “Whichever party is in power, things would be better if we had influence over their policies”. At least in the debates, they will have an opportunity to make their case.

Questions asking the electorate as a whole (and Tories in particular) who they would prefer to see as Labour leader are pretty much pointless. The only people it is at all useful to ask are (a) those who are currently voting Labour but might not in future and (b) those who are not currently voting Labour but might do so in future). And then before even thinking about a change of leader there would need to bean assessment concerning the number of possible votes lost (potentially a lot if in-fighting starts) versus possible votes gained (potentially none at all).

Since the Tory and Labour votes both appear to have a core of about 30%, that only leaves a target audience of 6-7%, with 12-13% (including an appreciable number of soft votes from LibDem exiles) who might be frightened away.

Comparisons with Hague and IDS seem idiotic – correct me if I’m wrong, but apart from a very short blip at the time of the fuel protest, neither of these ever even got within touching distance of Labour, let alone a solid and stable 5-7 point lead.

Chris Todd
“…how refreshing it would be if one of the parties had a woman as leader.

Is there any such suitable candidate in, for example, the Labour party…”

The SNP have one who would be outstanding and two others who would be more impressive than the Westminster lot. There is nothing surprising in that because the SP has always had a lot more women and in the second session there were more women MSP’s than Scotland had EVER sent to Westminster as MP’s in total.

The Cons have just displaced the best leader they have, and one of the Labour front runners is female.

What mattersis not a single party leader, but having a critical mass of critical women. In practical effect, 40% is not very different from 60%. Only outside that range is it going to be one-sided.

Feminists will not be content till it’s 50% or more, but while it would be nice to say we’d got there, effectively, gender equality is a done deal when you consider the Founding Principles, the family friendly hours etc.

A former Presiding Officer who claimed experience of thee chambers was certain that it made a difference to how much attention was paid to certain topics not least maternal health and issues affecting children.

After more than twelve years, that changed balance is the accepted norm, and some of the men were and probably are supportive.

Scotland has many problems, but gender imbalance in the legislature is not one of them and it is good to be reminded of how far we have progressed.

MPs are not important – unless they are ministers. Otherwise they are just lobby fodder.

For the SNP, it is important to have able representatives in both of these Parliaments that exist outwith Scotland, but can still legislate for us. For us, a good MEP is just as important as a good MP.

No – the historical trend data for the question is here. There was a single poll in 2008 that put the Tories one point ahead on the NHS, but certainly throughout the run up to the general election and during the campaign Labour party were ahead on the issue.

“Among Catholics, who have traditionally favoured Labour over the SNP, the Nationalists won 43 per cent of support, compared to Labour’s 36 per cent. The SNP’s historically below-average appeal to women was also all but cancelled out, while the party also easily won the largest number of working-class voters.”

“Prof Mitchell said that around one third of the one million people who voted for Labour in the 2010 general election had moved to the SNP only a year later.

Contrary to claims immediately after the election, the collapsed Lib Dem vote was actually split between the SNP and Labour, Prof Mitchell added.”